Police records reveal that the Oberlin administration was aware, no later than February 27, that it was a hoax led by someone who was not racist, but rather, a pro-Obama liberal “anti-racist” activist who did it as a “trolling” prank to get a campus reaction. The students protesting on campus on March 4, when classes were canceled, were not told.

Oberlin could have informed the campus and the nation that there were no actual fires, just fire alarms pulled as a prank. Instead, it allowed fear and disquiet to spread. One student I spoke with stated that “people were freaking out when [the administration] brought in the FBI,” thinking there really was a threat.

But it’s even worse. That fear and disquiet was exploited by student activists aligned with the Oberlin Multicultural Resource Center and Afrikan Heritage House with the encouragement of the Oberlin administration.

Oberlin “used that fear to get students to push for even more extreme policies”

A student contacted me to alert me to how the campus turmoil was exploited to encourage and then implement aggressive multicultural and left-wing agenda items:

I’d like to personally thank you for your coverage of the Oberlin hate hoax. Many students… have been following your site and are glad that somebody is helping to get the word out about the Oberlin administration’s response.

The Daily Caller story just grazes the surface of what really happened. The administration didn’t just allow students to live in fear, they actually used that fear to get students to push for even more extreme policies on campus. Many students formed into “working groups” to propose solutions for “institutional change”, nearly all of which have been approved by the administration and are being enacted.

This student’s concerns are reflected in the timeline of events, and documents reflecting the agenda.

Go read the rest at Legal Insurrection. Never forget the Left will do anything achieve their ends

OK, I admit, that is a mean title for a blog post, but, I am really well past fed up with these morally retarded Leftists, who are far closer to Nazis than any Conservative getting a pass for their crude behaviors. The Other McCain has the reason I find Dunham so deplorable. Republicans are Nazis, or something equally inane.

Maybe you know somebody like Lena Dunham. In a way, it’s hard not to feel sorry for people like her. She’s not really that fat or that ugly, but she just can’t get over the fact that she’s not pretty and skinny.

She can never manage to recover from some deep psychic wound, a sort of juvenile ego-trauma that left her with such a profoundly damagedpersonality that she spends the rest of her life trying to get revenge against the world for bad things that happened to her years ago.

Anyway, if you know somebody like Lena Dunham, you understand what she’s doing: “I’m fat and ugly and unpopular, but maybe if I add ‘cruel’ and ‘obnoxious’ to the list, I can pretend like people who don’t like me are intimidated by my intelligence and courage.” This isn’t really an effective compensation, but it provides her an excuse — a rationalization, a defense mechanism — she can alternately cling to as a crutch or wield as a weapon, harming others without actually helping herself. The damage is never healed, because her inner feelings of worthlessness are so intense, she scorns as contemptible anyone who wants to help her: “If you like me, there must be something wrong with you.”

All of which is a necessary preamble to the latest manifestation of Lena Dunham’s tendency toward vengeful cruelty: People complained about the lack of diversity on Lena’s Not Very Popular HBO Show, so she decided to bring on a black guy . . . as a Republican villain:

Personally, I have never seen her show, likely never will. Frankly, most of HBO’s original programming has been crap, well except for Arliss, I really like that show. To me most cable programming tries too hard, way too hard to “push the envelope” and they end up with shows that seem to be made for sluts, men with the brains of 13-year-old boys, and people who still think getting stoned is like, really cool dudes! But, that is of no matter, not all forms of entertainment are for everyone. But the real point is that people like Dunham are not just ignorant and wrong in their ideological visions. It is that they revel in their ignorance, as if being absolutely clueless is cutting edge and hip. It is that they wallow in their own pits of hatred while screaming about tolerance and claiming to be against hate. Speaking of pits of hatred, consider Dunham’s remarks about Republicans

I want to start with the fourth scene of the entire season, which is you, topless …… on top of Donald Glover.

Having sex.Yes.

Which is pretty much a summary of every single thing that people complained about in season one. How conscious was that?We always wanted to work with Donald — he’s the cutest and the funniest, and why would you not want to kiss him on TV? But I think that when we shot that scene, there was both a feeling that it was the appropriate place for the character to be and a sense that it would, for people who had been paying attention to the backlash, at least evoke some sense that we were in a dialogue with our audience. It definitely wasn’t a “Fuck you, haters!” That’s not really how I tend to roll my game. But at the same time, it was a pretty clear statement that we are comfortable, that there isn’t a political agenda against having black characters in the show.

Why make him a Republican?We liked the idea of a Republican entering their universe. And Hannah doesn’t really have a clear sense of why you shouldn’t date a Republican; it’s kind of just like the same reason why you shouldn’t date a Nazi: You just shouldn’t.

In fairness, to Dunham she does go on to say that she just doesn’t think she would be attracted to a Republican and that you should date whomever you wish, OK fine. But my problem is that Dunham in my opinion thinks she HAS to say that Republicans are Nazis. She thinks, again my opinion, that she HAS to have certain Leftist political views to be cool, relevant and hip. I get that impression from a lot of folks in the entertainment world. Sometimes I wonder if their political views are theirs, or if they are just trying to fit in by saying what they think they are supposed to.

Aaron Worthing dissects a piece at Mother Jones that attempts to make the case that Hitler’s disarming of the Jews was, get ready for it, good for the Jews.

So this morning I find out that Mother Jones published a piece called Was Hitler Really a Fan of Gun Control? The dissembling involved is nothing less than spectacular. So let’s fisk this sucker:

Now, the fascinating thing about the Mother Jones piece is that it exposes a tactic the Left has been using a long time, call it historical erasure. They spin history, omit the things they do not like, and push their scripted version as “fact” to the masses. It is another way to replace education with indoctrination. Watch what Mother Jones does here.

This article addresses German firearms laws and Nazi policies and practices to disarm German citizens, particularly political opponents and Jews. It begins with an account of post-World War I chaos, which led to the enactment in 1928 by the liberal Weimar republic of Germany’s first comprehensive gun control law. Next, the Nazi seizure of power in 1933 was consolidated by massive searches and seizures of firearms from political opponents, who were invariably described as “communists.” After five years of repression and eradication of dissidents, Hitler signed a new gun control law in 1938, which benefitted Nazi party members and entities, but denied firearm ownership to enemies of the state. Later that year, in Kristallnacht (the Night of the Broken Glass), in one fell swoop, the Nazi regime disarmed Germany’s Jews. Without any ability to defend themselves, the Jewish population could easily be sent to concentration camps for the Final Solution. After World War II began, Nazi authorities continued to register and mistrust civilian firearm owners, and German resistence to the Nazi regime was unsuccessful.

That is right, folks, Kristallnacht was about disarming Jews, too.

And I gently suggest you read the whole thing.

Of course the Mother Jones piece acknowledges this, in a backhanded way:

In 1938, under Nazi rule, gun laws became significantly more relaxed. Rifle and shotgun possession were deregulated and gun access for hunters, Nazi Party members, and government officials was expanded. The legal age to own a gun was lowered. Jews, however, were prohibited from owning firearms and other dangerous weapons.

In other words, the people Hitler liked were allowed to have guns, but not others. Oh and by the way, the Jews were not allowed to have guns, but hey, why would they need them? Of course that last question is rhetorical and facetious, but Mother Jones actually found a professor will to argue that it was good for the Jews in Germany to be disarmed:

“But guns didn’t play a particularly important part [in maintaining Hitler’s power or the Holocaust] in any event,” says Professor Robert Spitzer, who chairs SUNY Cortland’s political science department and has extensively researched gun-control politics…. If Jews had been better armed, Spitzer says, it would only have hastened their demise. Gun policy “wasn’t the defining moment that marked the beginning of the end for Jewish people in Germany. It was because they were persecuted, were deprived of all of their rights, and they were a minority group.”

That is my favorite part, right here “Gun policy “wasn’t the defining moment that marked the beginning of the end for Jewish people in Germany. It was because they were persecuted, were deprived of all of their rights”

See that? The professor, Joseph Spitzer dismisses the notion that being disarmed had anything to do with what eventually happened to the Jews. It was that they were persecuted and denied their rights you see. Of course, it never dawns on Spitzer that the most egregious attack on the rights of German Jews WAS disarming them. Or maybe Spitzer does realize it was, and he is just spinning to downplay the importance of the right to bear arms and the inherent dangers of a government forbidding a segment of its people the right top self-defense. A danger that was crystal clear to our Founders.

Worthing goes on to note that this same propagandist/idiot, take your pick, also refuses to acknowledge that Stalin trampled the rights of Russians by disarming them.

Of course I find myself quoting Judge Kozinsky’s gorgeous opinion (it’s a dissent but today can be cited as controlling law) in defense of gun laws, again:

If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

Really it is beyond bizarre to say that it was a good thing for the German Jews to be disarmed under the Nazis. Even if their defeat was inevitable, maybe those Jews would have preferred to take a few of the bastards with them rather than being murdered without a shot. And their defeat only looks as inevitable as it must have looked for the Americans in 1776, or the Jews in Warsaw. And certainly Hitler was worried about Jewish resistance, which is why he disarmed them!

Sheesh.

The same idiot professor makes the same argument with Stalin:

Gun enthusiasts often mention that the Soviet Union restricted access to guns in 1929 after Joseph Stalin rose to power. But to suggest that a better armed Russian populace would have overthrown the Bolsheviks is also too simplistic, says Spitzer. “To answer the question of the relationship between guns and the revolutions in those nations is to study the comparative politics and comparative history of those nations,” he explains. “It takes some analysis to break this down and explain it, and that’s often not amenable to a soundbyte or a headline.”If that sounds like Leftist spin AKA BS that is because it is, and Worthing refutes it with common sense

Again, if Stalin didn’t think an armed populace was a threat to his rule, he wouldn’t have disarmed them. Oy!

Of course the Mother Jones piece is a prelude to their REAL message, which is “See Americans, gun bans are not that bad, so even IF wink wink, Democrats were to ban guns, it would be OK!! We know, a Unicorn told us so!”

For nearly eighty years now, the Left has engaged in one of the most successful Big Lie campaigns in it’s history.

They have been able to get the vast majority of the people who have lived in this country [and in the other countries of The West] since the 1930′s to believe that Fascism is a Right Wing system of belief. The Left has deftly convinced Americans that Fascism is nothing like Communism, that the former is crude, militantly nationalistic, and only interested in absolute power and brutal control [‘Deutschland, Deutschland, über alles…’], whereas Communism / Socialism is merely seeking to bring about Equality, Liberty, and Fraternity [‘Imagine no possessions…’]. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth: Fascism is merely a transitional stage between mild Statism [Modern Liberalism] and Socialism. In other words, it is decidedly a belief system of the Left — grown as it was in the sterile laboratories located in the minds of Leftists like Benito Mussolini.

In it’s successful effort to distance itself from Herr Hitler and Il Duce, the Communist Propaganda Machine was able to get people to see Fascism as a Right Wing phenomenon, and this has the benefit of allowing them to label any conservative a Fascist at will — a very useful tool in politics, as we have seen. The Progressives in America have adopted this practice, kept this meme alive. Because of World War II, people have ever since associated Fascism with the Nazis, so, therefore, anytime you accuse a person on the Right of being a Fascist, a certain set of images enters the brainwashed mind of the hearer.

The Truth, of course, is quite different, but, as we have learned the hard way, the Left believes that Truth is relative and is only useful as a servant for their ends.

The above introduction is the necessary lead-in to the following…

The man who murdered innocent Sikh’s yesterday in Wisconsin, Wade Michael Page, is being described by law enforcement officials as a ‘Neo-Nazi’ and ‘White Supremacist’. All the indications so far are that he was.

Needless to say, the MSM and left-blogosphere have concluded the shooter was a white supremacist/neo-Nazi based on tattoos and being a former member of what they describe as a “skinhead” band — which they then obscenely generalize to be “right-wing,” a way of trying to link him to the political right. This is the age-old tactic. If Page was a white supremacist/neo-Nazi/skinhead, then he stood against everything the political right stands for.

Then there is, of course, the Mushy Middle, the Ignoramentariot, those people who can not be bothered to do the homework required to be a proper citizen because it would interfere with their funtime, just ‘know’ that Neo-Nazi = Right Wing = conservative and that White Supremacist = Right Wing = conservative. I mean, come on man, we all know it’s, like, true — it’s a given, every body knows this.

Go read the entire piece, it is well worth the time invested. In conclusion, Bob underscores the point that Nazism, Communism, are both of the Left because they are forms of Totalitariansim, and the Left are the Totalitarians, not the Right. As I have said before the basis of Conservatism is Individualism, individual liberties, and the belief that those rights are Natural Rights. And such rights do not come from, nor can they be restricted by government. The Left, on the other hand puts their faith in Collectivism. Collectivism denounces individual rights, and firmly believes that all rights are collective, and come ONLY at the behest of government. This belief is rooted in Marxism, and yes, Nazism as well.

Think of it this way Nazism=Collectivism=Totalitarianism, and Communism= Collectivism=Totalitarianism. So, if the Left wants to say that this evil bastard that slaughtered innocents is a Nazi, or Fascist, then I agree. But, unlike those on the Left, who are seeking to gain a political advantage by playing the Nazi/Fascist Card, I am well aware of what that really means. It means that Wade Michael Page has more, far more, in common with the Left, than the Right.

The latest wildfire spreading through the media and blogosphere is that armed neo-Nazis are patrolling Sanford, FL, in anticipation of trouble if George Zimmerman is not charged in the killing of Trayvon Martin. In what has become a prime example of media malpractice, none of the major publications spreading the rumors bothered to check with local law enforcement. I did, and the Sanford Police deny any indication of neo-Nazi patrols.

Neo-Nazis are currently conducting heavily armed patrols in and around Sanford, Florida and are “prepared” for violence in the case of a race riot. The patrols are to protect “white citizens in the area who are concerned for their safety” in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting last month, says Commander Jeff Schoep of the National Socialist Movement. “We are not advocating any type of violence or attacks on anybody, but we are prepared for it,” he says. “We are not the type of white people who are going to be walked all over.”

The patrols are comprised of between 10 and 20 locals and “volunteers” from across the state, including some from Miami, he added. He couldn’t go into specifics on what kind of firepower, exactly, the patrols had with them.

The blog post quotes someone from a supposed neo-Nazi group in Detroit, and contains photos of armed patrols not in Sanford, but in Arizona. The author of the blog post provides no confirmation that such patrols actually are taking place.

The blog post already has generated over 1100 comments, and was picked up with reckless abandon by the usual suspects, including Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs:

Well of course Johnsom would jump all over this like a crackhead looking for their pipe. He has as much objectivity as MSNBS does. Maybe that is what CJ is hoping for? A gig on The ED Show maybe? I am sure Ed Schultz needs someone to fetch his sandwiches and dry cleaning, Johnson might be able to do those tasks.

What a pity that the Left does the same thing every time they see a tragedy that they think they can exploit. They jump on with both feet, shrieking, and screaming, doing their best to smear the Right. Then, as their false accusations are proven false, they just keep repeating the same lies, and, of course, make up new ones. Trust me folks, the Left is NEVER going to say anything about this case that does not fit their narrative. Ten years from now, the same race pimps will be telling the same lies about this case!

Americans must to decide if, in the name of homeland security, they are willing to allow TSA operatives to storm public places in their communities with no warning, pat them down, and search their bags. And they better decide quickly.

Bus travelers were shocked when jackbooted TSA officers in black SWAT-style uniforms descended unannounced upon the Tampa Greyhound bus station in April with local, state and federal law enforcement agencies and federal bureaucrats in tow.

A news report by ABC Action News in Tampa showed passengers being given the signature pat downs Americans are used to watching the Transportation Security Administration screeners perform at our airports. Canine teams sniffed their bags and the buses they rode. Immigration officials hunted for large sums of cash as part of an anti-smuggling initiative.

The TSA clearly intends for these out-of-nowhere swarms by its officers at community transit centers, bus stops and public events to become a routine and accepted part of American life.

The TSA has conducted 8,000 of these security sweeps across the country in the past year alone, TSA chief John Pistole told a Senate committee June 14. They are part of its VIPR (Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response) program, which targets public transit related places.

All of which is enough to make you wonder if we are watching the formation of the “civilian national security force” President Obama called for on the campaign trail “that is just as powerful, just as strong and just as well funded” as the military.

The VIPR swarm on Wednesday, the TSA’s largest so far, was such a shocking display of the agency’s power that it set the blogosphere abuzz.

In a massive flex of muscle most people didn’t know the TSA had, the agency led dozens of federal and state law enforcement agencies in a VIPR exercise that covered three states and 5,000 square miles. According to the Marietta Times, the sweep used reconnaissance aircraft and “multiple airborne assets, including Blackhawk helicopters and fixed wing aircraft as well as waterborne and surface teams.”

When did the TSA get this powerful? Last year, Pistole told USA Today he wanted to “take the TSA to the next level,” building it into a “national-security, counterterrorism organization, fully integrated into U.S. government efforts.”

What few people realize is how far Pistole has already come in his quest. This is apparently what that next level looks like. More than 300 law enforcement and military personnel swept through a 100-mile stretch of the Ohio Valley alone, examining the area’s industrial infrastructure, the Charleston Gazette reported.

Federal air marshals, the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard, the FBI, the Office of Homeland Security and two dozen other federal, state and local agencies teamed up to scour the state’s roads, bridges, water supply and transit centers under the TSA’s leadership.

What is remarkable about these security swarms is that they don’t just involve federal, state and local law enforcement officials. The TSA brings in squads of bureaucrats from state and federal agencies as well, everything from transportation departments to departments of natural resources.

The TSA had received no specific threats about the Tampa bus station before the April sweep, reporters were told.

They were there “to sort of invent the wheel in advance in case we have to if there ever is specific intelligence requiring us to be here,” said Gary Milano with the Department of Homeland Security in an ABC News Action television report. “This way us and our partners are ready to move in at a moment’s notice.”

Federal immigration officials from Customs and Border Patrol swept the station with the TSA, looking for “immigration violations, threats to national security” and “bulk cash smuggling.” (How the bulk cash smuggling investigation related to national security was never explained.)

“We’ll be back,” Milano told reporters. “We won’t say when we’ll be back. This way the bad guys are on notice we’ll be back.”

The TSA gave the same vague answers when asked about the three-state sweep this week. That sweep wasn’t in response to any specific security threat, either.

The purpose was to “have a visible presence and let people know we’re out here,” Michael Cleveland, federal security director for TSA operations in West Virginia told the Gazette. “It can be a deterrent.”